| Literature DB >> 34194292 |
Li Zhang1,2,3, Duoru Lin1, Yong Wang3, Wan Chen1, Wei Xiao1, Yi Xiang2, Yi Zhu4, Chuan Chen5, Xiying Dong6, Yizhi Liu1, Weirong Chen1, Haotian Lin1.
Abstract
Visual neuroadaptation is believed to play an important role in determining the final visual outcomes following intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. To investigate visual neuroadaptation in patients with age-related cataracts (ARCs) after phacoemulsification with multifocal and monofocal IOL implantation, we conducted a prospective, controlled clinical trial in Zhongshan Ophthalmology Center. This study included 22 patients with bilateral ARCs: 11 patients underwent phacoemulsification and multifocal IOL (Mu-IOL) implantation, and 11 patients underwent phacoemulsification and monofocal IOL (Mo-IOL) implantation. Visual disturbances (glare and halos), visual function (including visual acuity, retinal straylight, contrast sensitivity, and visual evoked potentials) and visual cortical function (fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations, fALFF) in Bowman's areas 17-19 as the region of interest were assessed before and after surgeries. The results showed that the fALFF values of the visual cortex in the Mu-IOL group decreased at 1 week postoperatively and recovered to baseline at 3 months and then improved at 6 months, compared with preoperative levels (at a whole-brain threshold of P < 0.05, AlphaSim-corrected, voxels > 228, repeated measures analysis of variance). Significantly increased fALFF values in the visual cortex were detected 1 week after surgery in the Mo-IOL group and decreased to baseline at 3 and 6 months. The fALFF of the lingual gyrus was negatively correlated with visual disturbances (P < 0.05). To conclude, early postoperative visual neuroadaptation was detected in the Mu-IOL group by resting-state fMRI analysis. The different changing trends of postoperative fALFF values in the two groups indicated distinct neuroadaptations patterns after Mu-IOL and Mo-IOL implantation.Entities:
Keywords: functional magnetic resonance imaging; monofocal intraocular lens; multifocal intraocular lens; visual disturbances; visual function; visual neuroadaptation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34194292 PMCID: PMC8236945 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.648863
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 1Flowchart of recruitment and follow-up evaluations. fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging; UCDVA, uncorrected distance visual acuity; BCDVA, best-corrected distance visual acuity; CS, contrast sensitivity; SV, straylight values; VEP, visual evoked potential; Mo-IOL, monofocal intraocular lens; Mu-IOL, multifocal intraocular lens.
Comparison of visual function between the Mu- and Mo-IOL groups.
| VA | UCDVA | Mu-IOL | 0.71 ± 0.37 | 0.02 ± 0.05* | 0.02 ± 0.08* | 0.03 ± 0.07* |
| Mo-IOL | 0.94 ± 0.39 | 0.08 ± 0.09* | 0.03 ± 0.08* | 0.03 ± 0.08* | ||
| 0.057 | 0.132 | 0.538 | 0.821 | |||
| BCDVA | Mu-IOL | 0.55 ± 0.35 | −0.03 ± 0.04* | −0.04 ± 0.04* | −0.04 ± 0.04* | |
| Mo-IOL | 0.68 ± 0.37 | −0.05 ± 0.04* | −0.05 ± 0.04* | −0.06 ± 0.04* | ||
| 0.134 | 0.127 | |||||
| VEP | Amplitudes | Mu-IOL | 7.62 ± 3.25 | 10.51 ± 4.47* | 10.35 ± 2.51* | 9.88 ± 3.31* |
| Mo-IOL | 8.21 ± 3.07 | 15.50 ± 4.50* | 15.97 ± 4.58* | 14.13 ± 3.59* | ||
| 0.538 | ||||||
| Latencies | Mu-IOL | 122.81 ± 11.79 | 109.55 ± 7.68* | 108.90 ± 6.03* | 107.82 ± 5.13* | |
| Mo-IOL | 121.00 ± 16.32 | 105.05 ± 6.03* | 104.45 ± 4.83* | 104.82 ± 4.74* | ||
| 0.674 | 0.051 | |||||
| SV | Mu-IOL | N/A | 1.54 ± 0.13 | 1.32 ± 0.15** | 1.26 ± 0.11** | |
| Mo-IOL | N/A | 1.41 ± 0.16 | 1.30 ± 0.17** | 1.24 ± 0.21** | ||
| N/A | 0.665 | 0.743 | ||||
| CS | 6.3 | Mu-IOL | N/A | 1.53 ± 0.15 | 1.57 ± 0.10 | 1.63 ± 0.09** |
| Mo-IOL | N/A | 1.57 ± 0.11 | 1.72 ± 0.12** | 1.72 ± 0.14** | ||
| N/A | 0.247 | |||||
| 4 | Mu-IOL | N/A | 1.34 ± 0.13 | 1.42 ± 0.14** | 1.48 ± 0.11** | |
| Mo-IOL | N/A | 1.43 ± 0.12 | 1.53 ± 0.09** | 1.54 ± 0.13** | ||
| N/A | ||||||
| 2.5 | Mu-IOL | N/A | 1.13 ± 0.16 | 1.21 ± 0.15** | 1.24 ± 0.15** | |
| Mo-IOL | N/A | 1.17 ± 0.12 | 1.29 ± 0.10** | 1.35 ± 0.14** | ||
| N/A | 0.417 | |||||
| 1.6 | Mu-IOL | N/A | 0.88 ± 0.15 | 1.01 ± 0.13** | 1.07 ± 0.15** | |
| Mo-IOL | N/A | 0.91 ± 0.14 | 1.09 ± 0.22** | 1.10 ± 0.23** | ||
| N/A | 0.544 | 0.157 | 0.534 | |||
| 1.0 | Mu-IOL | N/A | 0.54 ± 0.12 | 0.66 ± 0.13** | 0.68 ± 0.15** | |
| Mo-IOL | N/A | 0.65 ± 0.15 | 0.73 ± 0.17** | 0.78 ± 0.15** | ||
| N/A | 0.103 | |||||
| 0.7 | Mu-IOL | N/A | 0.36 ± 0.03 | 0.37 ± 0.05 | 0.41 ± 0.07** | |
| Mo-IOL | N/A | 0.38 ± 0.08 | 0.43 ± 0.09** | 0.43 ± 0.09** | ||
| N/A | 0.175 | 0.279 | ||||
FIGURE 2Comparison of visual disturbances between two groups. (A) Visual disturbances ratio for glare and halos faded away gradually during the follow-up in the Mu-IOL group; (B) Visual disturbances ratio for halos reduced stepwise during the follow-up in the Mo-IOL group; (C) The mean of visual disturbances diminished gradually in both Mu-IOL and Mo-IOL groups; (D) The mean value in the Mu-IOL group was more severe than in the Mo-IOL group at 1 week or 3 months postoperation. BA, Brodmann area; Mo-IOL, monofocal intraocular lens; Mu-IOL, multifocal intraocular lens; 1 w, 1 week postoperatively; 3 m, 3 months postoperatively; 6 m, 6 months postoperatively; pre, preoperatively (∗<0.05; ∗∗∗<0.001).
FIGURE 3Longitudinal and transverse comparisons of fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (fALFF) value in two groups. Surface maps show the fALFF value changes in the visual cortex between preoperative and postoperative time points (at a whole-brain threshold of P < 0.05, AlphaSim-corrected, voxels >228, repeated measures (ANOVA) or between the Mu- and Mo-IOL groups (at a whole-brain threshold of P < 0.05, AlphaSim corrected, voxels >228, two-sample t-tests). Slice overlays and plots represent the mean signals from the smoothed difference images for each cluster. Blue and cyan reflect decreases. Red and yellow reflect increases, and t indicates the peak t-score value for the t-test. (a) Compared with preoperative values, significantly decreased fALFF values in the Mu-IOL group, but increased values in the Mo-IOL group, in the lingual gyrus (BA17, BA18, and BA19) were observed at 1 week postoperation; (b) Compared with preoperative values, no significant difference was found in either the Mu- or the Mo-IOL group at 3 months postoperation; (c) Compared with preoperative values, significantly increased fALFF values in the Mu-IOL group in the cuneus (BA18 and BA19), but no significant difference in the Mo-IOL group, were observed at 6 weeks postoperation; (d) No significant difference was found in both Mu- and Mo-IOL groups between 1 week and 3 months postoperation; (e) Compared with 1-week postoperation value, significantly increased fALFF values in the Mu-IOL group in the lingual gyrus (BA17, BA18, and BA19) but no significant difference in the MO-IOL group was observed 6 weeks after surgery; (f) No significant difference was found in either the Mu- or the Mo-IOL group between 3 and 6 months postoperation; (g) Comparing the Mo-IOL group to the Mu-IOL group, significantly increased fALFF values in the lingual gyrus (BA17, BA18, and BA19) were reported only at 1 week postoperation. BA, Brodmann area; Mo-IOL, monofocal intraocular lens; Mu-IOL, multifocal intraocular lens; 1 w, 1 week postoperatively; 3 m, 3 months postoperatively; 6 m, 6 months postoperatively; pre, preoperatively.
Comparison of fALFF values (visual cortex) after surgery in the Mu- and Mo-IOL groups.
| 1 w vs Pre | Lingual gyrus | 17/18/19 | 405 | −18 | −60 | −9 | −4.1499 | |
| 3 m vs Pre | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| 6 m vs Pre | Cuneus | 18/19 | 244 | −21 | −93 | 30 | 3.7376 | |
| 3 m vs 1 w | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| 6 m vs 1 w | Lingual gyrus | 17/18/19 | 702 | −15 | −72 | −3 | 4.6322 | |
| 6 m vs 3 m | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| 1 w vs Pre | Lingual gyrus | 17/18/19 | 478 | −6 | −51 | −9 | 4.3132 | |
| 3 m vs Pre | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| 6 m vs Pre | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| 3 m vs 1 w | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| 6 m vs 1 w | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| 6 m vs 3 m | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| Pre | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| 1 w | Lingual gyrus | 17/18/19 | 689 | 6 | −78 | −12 | 5.3405 | |
| 3 m | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| 6 m | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
FIGURE 4Relationships between the mean of visual disturbances and the fALFF value in the lingual gyrus in the Mu-IOL group (A) and in the Mo-IOL group (B). No significant correlations were noted between visual disturbance and visual function. fALFF, the fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations; Mo-IOL, monofocal intraocular lens; Mu-IOL, multifocal intraocular lens.